The Trump Administration's thoughts on the War in Ukraine, in a Nutshell

DGS49

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
18,473
Reaction score
18,567
Points
2,415
Location
Pittsburgh
Quoted from JDV's twitter feed...

[begin quote] For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base? Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict.

That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is currently flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else).

We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States. Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now.

President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that. [end of quote]
 
Quoted from JDV's twitter feed...

[begin quote] For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base? Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict.

That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is currently flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else).

We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States. Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now.

President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that. [end of quote]


Wow. Yeah, that's brilliant and spot on. Man, I really hope he gets to be President after Trump.
 
Hopefully, Europe will stand up and make up for America siding with Putin

Trump is sacrificing Ukraine to give Russia peace
 
Hopefully, Europe will stand up and make up for America siding with Putin

Trump is sacrificing Ukraine to give Russia peace


If Europe wants to break with American leadership and go it alone, I am fine with that.


JUst don't think that they can be the tail that wags the dog.


They want to start a fight, a dumb fight, then expect us to do the bulk of the work?


Fuck no.
 
So Trumps answer is to award victory to Putin

What ever happened to the US standing up for what is right?
Who says our involvement is right? You. The political class. The globalists who control many of the political class? It costs a lot of money to project power. We have taken a beating since we entered the Middle East under George the first. Putin gets parts of Eastern Ukraine and easier access to the black Sea. There are many Russians living in those areas. Of course, the Europeans can pay all of the war effort if they want. Their socialist panacea will be affected though.
 
Putin started that fight and you are standing up for Putin


lol. Way to evade the point. THey want to escalate it, to a global war, that is a new choice they want to make and then draw US into.


And not wanting to do that, is NOT "standing up for Putin".

If you can't be honest in why you want a policy, that means that it is a bad policy.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
 
So Trumps answer is to award victory to Putin

What ever happened to the US standing up for what is right?
It went out the door in Afghanistan during the Biden Admin.

Why is remaining embroiled in a European war the right thing to do?
 
Hopefully? Interesting, so when Europe doesn't stand up to Putin will you also accuse them of sacrificing Ukraine to Putin?


Nah, that would be "different". Because "Reasons". LOL.


Good one though. Libs get confused when you ask them questions based on taking their words seriously.
 
We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States. Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now.

President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that. [end of quote]
Hard to ague with this.

I support beating the Soviets whenever possible; this can only happen with direct western military action, which no one wants.

The best result here Ukraine giving up the small Russian-speaking areas the Soviets want, and then, to ensure its sovereignty, joining NATO.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom